Reviews

Art exhibition

23 reviews so far

Rating: 0.5 out of 5 stars

For those still trying to equate photographs depicting legal children without thier clothes as art . If you dont want to see our courts filled with teens using "It's ART" as their defence for sending photos taken on phones or cams of themselves or other children , then you have to understand that legally taking and displaying photographs of nude children is pedophilia . turning around and saying "he is so misunderstood" just doesnt cut it . have you all forgotten how underbelly , for all it is a screenplay with similarities to real life , wasnt able to harness the "It's ART" defence . our laws may not please all of you , but they are the best we have to protect our children from people who may harbour much more dangerous desires which can be fed from publishing naked pictures of children . do you really want to encourage THEM ?

Commenter

david

Location

katanning

Date and time

April 09, 2011, 12:47AM

Rating: 0.5 out of 5 stars

....Henson's images are testimonies to that quality Nietzsche calls the "great intelligence" of the body. In simple, mute images, unencumbered with pseudo-intellectual claptrap, they show us bodies that effortlessly conjure up thoughts of the soul and the self...."John McDonald"

Thanks John, clearly you are a deep and wise art critic - no pseudo intellectual claptrap from you - Just plain Claptrap. But written so intelligently!

Once again the artistically intelligent are trying to scare anyone from saying a negative word - accusing them of being unintelligent and unable to appreciate "real art".

John - in a democracy - we are all allowed to have an opinion - and photos of nude children are just that.Stop attempting to squash feedback by creating fear please.We are all allowed an opinion John.

Commenter

jasonstyle

Location

NSW

Date and time

April 09, 2011, 1:02AM

Rating: 0.5 out of 5 stars

I was also at the opening. Same old Henson stuff.

When your an artist if you do the same thing every time it gets boring. Change it up Bill ! Think of a new idea !

And just a suggestion, maybe it's not a good idea to take photos of naked underage girls ? Just a suggestion.........

Commenter

Mark S

Location

Melbourne

Date and time

April 09, 2011, 5:43AM

Rating: 0.5 out of 5 stars

For me, the problem is not about issues with 'forbidden desires' or dispising the naked body. It is the issue of responsibility. Could the body, soul and self be displayed with models that are over 18? If not, why not? Concerns about about young people or even children, that are encouraged by there parents to participate in this art, boil down to, the exploitation of the child by selfish parents. For me, it is the art worlds equivalent to 'Australia has got Talent' Society despises parents that force kids to participate in beauty contests The obvious ego issues of the parent, and the exploitation of someone that isn't old enough to fully make an informed decision is repulsive. The desire for exposure appears paramount to anything else. If the exposure of young adolescents or even children by Hanson was used as a defense by pedophiles, would society think the benefits out way the costs. I would hope not. I assume Hanson's intention is not exploit, but if it prolongs the torture of a child even for one second, then for me, it should be banned. It is a question of relevance and responsibility, not conservative views about nudity and art.Adults, and societies paramount responsibility should be to protect children. Hanson's supporters desires to view the pictures should never be more important than the rights of the child. Can they easily find the same meaning in other forms of art? And can Hanson use other subjects to get his message across.?

Commenter

V for vendetta

Location

sydney

Date and time

April 09, 2011, 6:20AM

Rating: 1 out of 5 stars

I've got to love that. People who are panicked or dislike the exhibition are now "despisers of the body".No. I love the human body.I despise the sexualism of the adolescent form - and to defend it with such a pathetic mantra is moronic.I don't understand it - one cannot share a child's naked photo - purely innocent without being charged with distribution of child pornorgraphy. One cannot, as a teen, distribute photos of themselves to their lover without being charged with child pornography. One can photograph nudes, of people they have no relationship with, distribute those photos, to unknown people - possibly to thousands, market it as art, and you will be defended with the "that is art" defence?How has this guy not been indicted and put on the child pornography/paedophile list?Simply beyond words.I mean, what does that photo look like to you?Henson got away with it over the years and is pissing himself laughing, and is getting more and more graphic with these images.

Commenter

Hermes

Location

Sydney

Date and time

April 09, 2011, 8:55AM

Rating: 2 out of 5 stars

I think it's disengenuous to paint anyone who criticises the use of underaged models for nude photography as hysterical moralisers or 'despisers of the body'. Most people agree that there's nothing wrong with nudity or sexuality but it's something that is deeply personal, particularly at such a vulnerable stage of development.The issue is a simple matter of consent. Children's bodies and sexuality don't belong to us to contemplate and muse over without their consent - something a child simply can't give as a fully imformed and aware adult can. I don't think that artists are immune from ethics just because they're artists. And I don't think that any adult has the right to ask this of a child. See the now adult daughters of the artist Larry Rivers for a case in point. "I don't want it out there in the world" says it all. Unfortunately, they had and have no choice in the matter, all because "it's art".

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/arts/design/08rivers.html?_r=1

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/arts/design/08rivers.html?_r=1

Commenter

Melissa

Date and time

April 09, 2011, 9:06AM

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

That Caravaggio may influence the darkness and light of some of these images only just occurred to me. Love it.

Commenter

Jules

Location

Sydney

Date and time

April 09, 2011, 9:19AM

Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

At last!!! Some intelligence around the whole Henson issue. And how refreshing to have a State Premier "stand and deliver", on the side challenging art. As John says, it will be interesting to hear our new leader reacts!

Thank you John, for a considered and insightful article. I do believe any reader who has previously been unsure about the art/pornography dilemma will have enough content here to make their own informed decision. BRAVO.

Commenter

Lyn

Location

Sydney

Date and time

April 09, 2011, 9:53AM

Rating: 5 out of 5 stars

Hear hear. I enjoyed your keen observation and sage consideration of the issues at stake. Thank you for refreshing honesty amd inspirating courage - a great start to the week.

Commenter

Hotlips

Location

Sydney

Date and time

April 11, 2011, 10:43AM

Rating: 2.5 out of 5 stars

Henson, by his own admission, is fascinated with the emerging sexuality of adolescence and explores this in his pictures. True 'grown-ups' are aware that adolescent sexuality is something for adolescents to explore themselves, not for adults to explore in order to sate their curiosity or exploit to fuel their own fascination.

Further, the potential exploitation of children is seen by most not as a moral issue, but as an ethical (and consequently legal) one.

Henson's supporters would like to believe that this is a battle between enlightened lovers of art and a religious right mired in a dark ages mindset, but it is they who are over-simplifying this issue. That attitude shows a distinct lack of intellectual rigour and an inability to consider the issues with the level of ethical responsibility that an enlightened adult would.

Far from despising the human body, I and many others have no problem with nudity in art but are concerned with the potential exploitation and sexualisation of children, even if the work has artistic merit.

As for Henson's current show, I haven't seen it so I am not qualified to rate it. Ordinarily I would not comment in this context, but as the reviewer spent at least half of the review opining on the concept of Henson's work rather than the show itself, I feel justified in addressing the same.